We’ve established that what’s said or implied on a counter-Divine Will basis is not only non-credible, but also void for being reducible only to an affront against our shared Creator and indeed to all involved as well. That said, it appears that the apostates have been investing in an effort to direct My attention and that of the general public to the idea of just how much they ostensibly uphold the Divinely-conferred rights I’d mentioned in My last communique. This appeared directly after, relevant bit at about four minutes thirty-nine seconds in, and I’ve noticed they continue thereafter while I’ve been trying to make the time to address this matter for readers.
Since the literal ‘United Nations’ ‘Human Rights’ is manifestly yet another of their rannygazoos whose nature is often less than clear and integrous to the general public, I should probably make sure to provide that clarity for My readers. The literal ‘United Nations’ itself is manifestly predicated on a counter-Divine Will basis, as should be expected as a franchise of, ultimately, the assemblage of telepaths and propheciers manifestly Choosing such a basis. In its very symbol we find among other things the Roman “fasces” symbol with “the World” itself as the centerpiece to which the “laurels” are applied. More on the import of this momentarily in the video clip I’ll present regarding their Manifesto.
Getting deeper, it appears to be modeled off of the symbol of “Ba█l” worship
which has been in manifest existence for even longer. It doesn’t get much more counter-Divine Will than that idol, and its name translates variously to ‘lord’, ‘master’, ‘ruler’ or ‘sovereign’. Not much individual sovereignty, Divinely-conferred rights or freedom lurking within something with that as its basis.
Next, the ‘Human Rights’ themselves. Like the ‘Civil Rights’ of the literal ‘United States’ they are not in fact Divinely-conferred rights, but instead human- and state-made privileges which the apostates have manifestly been attempting to substitute for them. The distinction being that rights are Divinely-conferred and intrinsic, and too high out of reach to be legitimately meddled with by either the state or the majority. Privileges, by contrast, are granted by either the state or the majority *at their discretion*, and can be given, rescinded, given back, and revoked again at whim. Merely using the term ‘rights’ for privileges, or ‘privileges’ for rights, is a misnomer and does not in truth convert one into the other. Since rights are Divinely-conferred, they cannot be given or taken by others. They remain irrespective of whatever a state or a majority may think of them, and the options are either to recognize or uphold them, or to fail to recognize and violate them. Though there might be extenuating circumstances in a given situation, the violation of rights is of course what crime is, despite the apostate system increasingly re-engineering the public mindset to regard crime as merely the violation of any edict adopted by officials of the state, regardless of how baseless, lacking in delegated authority, whimsical, or even rights-encroaching [and thus criminal] it is. The very purpose of the People establishing a government is to uphold those Divinely-conferred rights; to the extent it fails to do so against all comers, and even moreso when it violates those rights itself, a state fails to justify its own existence.
To the best of My understanding, the apostates manifestly began their ‘human rights’ campaign back with the ‘Manifesto of Human Rights’ just after their Jesuits’ Jacobin franchise had successfully launched enough propaganda at the People to enact the French Revolution. It was part of a non-overtly organized effort to install a regime more compliant with their agendas, and to supplant Christian values, beliefs and attitudes with ‘the Age of Reason[s]’, which ended up being ‘the Age of Non-Overtly Organized Sophistry and Propaganda’. As part of this came their ‘Manifesto of Human Rights’ with a whole lot of counter-Divine Will and counter-freedom imagery and symbolism, as part of an attempt to substitute privileges granted by men in place of rights granted by Divine Will.
Since then the overt ‘United Nations’ has manifestly noticed that it can not only attempt to supplant the public understanding of what rights genuinely are, it can also use this effort to promote various sociopolitical and economic agendas. Their ‘Carb█n Indulgences’ and their ‘Rights of the Child’ are good examples of this. In the latter case they’ve been forming an agenda to rationalize giving themselves and their constituent nations increasing control over how literal children are raised and educated, and seem to be in-process of enacting an agenda to systematically remove children from their parents’ care via the force of arms of the state when the parents’ ideas of how their children should be raised and educated are not in keeping with that of the ‘United Nations’. This agenda not only violates the rights of the parent, of which we’ve been hearing little, but also the inherent duties of the parent.
And this is manifestly the standard format for much of their modern sophistry. The apostates decide on an agenda they’d like to implement, and then have ‘their’ personnel and ‘their’ media talk at length about the supposed ‘rights’ of the side that they’d currently like to champion… even if they have to concoct rights which do not exist! Examples of this include ‘the right to feel safe’ by violating the right to bear armaments by the general public [leaving the state with a monopoly on armaments, conveniently], and the supposed ‘right’ of foreigners to enter the land of any country they’d like ipso facto, never mind that the land of a nation is deemed in law collectively owned by its own People. This is why for example the authority to set immigration and naturalization standards, requirements and procedures was delegated in the literal ‘United States’ by the People to their representatives in Congress via the 1787 Constitution. It was for the People to decide, or they would never have had the ability to delegate that authority in the first place. By now of course it has become manifestly self-evident that their representatives are no such thing and have been in collusion with foreign multinational entities and agendas, whose upholding of land rights has become demonstrably piteous.
Similarly, we’ve been told much about ‘womens rights’ at the expense even of the God-given right to life of another person. Even of other women who have not managed to successfully escape the birth canal. So the pattern of behavior and systematic violation of rights is quite noticeable, inconsistent, manipulated by sophistry, and this rationalize-anything basis appears to be exactly for what the Jesuits’ recent propagation of ‘social justice’ arguments has been designed and purpose-built. We now have them motivating the People for this or that cause via propaganda which miscontextualizes their agendas as ‘rights’ when they typically are not, and marginalizing swaths of the People adverse to that encroachment by pretending that their God-given rights are merely undeserved ‘privilege’.
While we’re at it, the ‘United Nations’ also symbolizes its efforts under the auspices of the “white dove” of the apostates’ idol “J█no”. So they’re indicating on a non-overt basis to ‘their’ personnel to advance the agendas and efforts of this globalist organization by presenting it as the supposed ‘good guys’ in a spurious geopolitical dichotomy. Yes, what I’ve been describing has been the apostates supposed ‘good guys’! This was what they’ve been investing their effort to directing My attention to when I described a few of the rights abuses systematically and routinely implemented by some of ‘their’ ‘not-so-good guys’. And that was just in the overt States, to say nothing of their ‘BRICS’ countries and similar with even more reprehensible rights records. [And rhetorically, do I even need to detail the systematic rights violations they’ve been manifestly allowing in South Africa by now?]
The manifest systemic rights violations of ‘their’ ‘not-so-good guys’ are intended not only to implement their agendas directly, they’re also being used to make their ‘good guys’ like the literal ‘United Nations’ look good by comparison, and even as the general public’s refuge from all the problems that the apostates themselves have been causing. Why I would hire, let alone promote, someone who’d been causing all My manifest problems is not quite clear to Me, and seems to be increasingly less than clear to the general public also. That does not bode particularly well for their recent efforts to use ‘their’ media to show the general public all these vastly unworthy scenarios of rights abuses, and then emphasize how essentially ‘if only the United Nations had more control and influence it could have stopped or prevented all these things!’.
Speaking of things which could be stopped or prevented, have a look at even more violations of the God-given right to life that the apostates have been apparently ‘beta-testing’ for later use to implement their sociopolitical agenda.
Upholding the God-given right to life is exposing stuff like this early, which I and others are doing. Given the amount of ‘Flat Earth’ “absurdities” the New Age conspiracy faux-’truthers’ had been accepting, had it been left unexposed this could have been quite effective and manifestly regrettable for both victim and apostate.
If we’ve taken stock of the manifest fact that the literal ‘United Nations’, and therefore the apostate system, routinely violates and systematically disregards Divine Will principles and the rights conferred upon us by our shared Creator, we can at least in fairness acknowledge that they just as easily disregard their own manmade ‘laws’ and precepts. At least, that’s the only inference I can make from their recent decision to select ‘Israel’ to head their Committee on International Law.
I think I’ve made it clear that upholding rights is more than merely chanting ‘rights!’ to the general public, and using it to promote various agendas and narratives. Manifestly, the word and the deed do not correspond with one another. This is likely the basis meant in [1 Thessalonians 5:3].
I’ve addressed the literal ‘United Nations’ on this, but what of the papacy? After all, it proclaims efforts and agendas and then the ‘United Nations’ member nations manifestly trip over each other in a rush to implement them. Their manifest history of unspeakable rights violations aside, do we have a recent statement from them establishing their prioritization of rights? We absolutely do.
‘Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’ released his encyclical in recent history. This was just after ‘Vatican 2’, Catholicism’s supposed great modern reform. Let’s read carefully, as we should always read a carefully-worded document, what the papacy had to say about rights there:
‘…Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: "God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all."
‘All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.’
How very interesting. According to the apostates, every single God-given right held by anyone is to be subordinated to the cause of enacting socialism. This surely cannot be what was intended, but there it is. More confirmation, if any were needed, of the maxim that one is manifestly neither competent nor credible to speak beyond the context of the basis they’ve manifestly Chosen. When an individual or group knowingly, Willfully and avoidably rejects a basis of Divine Will they also manifestly reject their own claim to the rights it provides, let alone any supposed authority to pronounce judgement over how they work for others or what the prioritization of rights is. What audacious temerity and presumption.
Less recently we have a Jesuit priest wresting the Scriptures to justify the papacy’s supposed God-given authority to violate the right to life of any non-Catholic, provided he doesn’t do so directly but has the courtesy to order someone else to do it. [I suppose the indirect approach would make for better publicity.]
We also have numerous modern instances of the apostates using diplomatic immunity to evade justice in the case of rights violations.
Lest we forget, we have a good indicator of what the apostates had been planning a few years ago just as I’d began speaking up openly and publicly. Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to the ‘United Nations’, spoke in a Jesuit periodical taking on the very notion of ‘God-given rights’ in favor of globalism dictating our behavior via ‘Sustainable Development Goals’.
Since everything published by the Jesuits is only done with their approval, I’m left to infer the obvious.
At roughly the same time, Mr. Bergoglio was releasing a carefully-worded public statement to the effect that religion must not be confined to personal conscience, and that it needed to be promoted by the public authorities. He’d said it was primarily expected of those authorities to create the conditions of ‘peace and calm’ for a ‘just and sustainable development’. How the apostates’ development expects to be any of those things while chucking Divinely-conferred rights is as yet unclear to Me.
[Isaiah 8:12-13] has never made more sense to Me: ‘Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’